Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 6/2018

Open Access 01-06-2018 | Original Research Article

Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

Authors: Brendan Mulhern, Yan Feng, Koonal Shah, Mathieu F. Janssen, Michael Herdman, Ben van Hout, Nancy Devlin

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Three EQ-5D value sets (EQ-5D-3L, crosswalk, and EQ-5D-5L) are now available for cost-utility analysis in the UK and/or England. The value sets’ characteristics differ, and it is important to assess the implications of these differences.

Objective

The aim of this paper is to compare the three value sets.

Methods

We carried out analysis comparing the predicted values from each value set, and investigated how differences in health on the descriptive system is reflected in the utility score by assessing the value of adjacent states. We also assessed differences in values using data from patients who completed both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L.

Results

The distribution of the value sets systematically differed. EQ-5D-5L values were higher than EQ-5D-3L/crosswalk values. The overall range and difference between adjacent states was smaller. In the patient data, the EQ-5D-5L produced higher values across all conditions and there was some evidence that the value sets rank different health conditions in a similar severity order.

Conclusions

There are important differences between the value sets. Due to the smaller range of EQ-5D-5L values, the possible change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) might be reduced, but they will apply to both control and intervention groups, and will depend on whether the gain is in quality of life, survival, or both. The increased sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L may also favour QALY gains even if the changes in utility are smaller. Further work should assess the impact of the different value sets on cost effectiveness by repeating the analysis on clinical trial data.
Footnotes
1
In the EQ-5D-3L, level 3 mobility was described as ‘confined to bed’ not ‘unable to’.
 
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.
5.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Australian Department of Health; 2015.
6.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada; 2017.
7.
Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D. Using patient reported outcomes to improve health care. London: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015.
8.
Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, Lloyd Jones M, Paisley S, O’Cathain A, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Gilbody S, Parry G. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:34.CrossRef
9.
Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernandez-Alava M, Mukuria C, Rowen D, Tosh J, Tsuchiya A, Evans P. Use of generic and condition specific measures of health related quality of life in NICE decision making: systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:9.CrossRef
10.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2005;13(9):873–84.CrossRef
11.
Lamers LM. The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med Care. 2007;45(3):238–44.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, Swinburn P, Busschbach J. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27.CrossRefPubMed
14.
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17:445–53.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Janssen MF, Oppe M, Versteegh M, Stolk EA. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(1):5–13.CrossRefPubMedCentral
17.
Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:993–1004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Office of National Statistics. Census 2011. London: Office of National Statistics; 2011.
25.
Layard R. A new priority for mental health. London: London School of Economics; 2015.
26.
Rüsch N, Angermeyer M, Corrigan P. Mental illness stigma: concepts, consequences, and initiatives to reduce stigma. Eur Psychiatry. 2005;20(8):529–39.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):348–61.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Cabasés JM, Rivero-Arias O. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2014;55(7):e51–8.CrossRef
29.
Rowen D, Brazier J, van Hout B. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med Decis Mak. 2014;35:328–40.CrossRef
30.
Feng Y, Devlin N, van Hout B. Revisiting the MVH value set: applying 5L modelling methods to 3L valuation data. Barcelona: EuroQol Research Foundation Plenary; 2017.
31.
Macran S, Kind P. Valuing EQ-5D health states using a modified MVH protocol: preliminary results. Sitges: EuroQol Research Foundation Plenary; 1999.
32.
Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. Rotterdam: Springer; 2007.CrossRef
33.
Versteegh M, Vermeulen K, Evers S, de Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk E. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):343–52.CrossRef
34.
Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, Cabasés JM, Serrano-Aguilar P, Rivero-Arias O. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2017;55(7):e51–8.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Mulhern B, Brazier J. Developing SF-6D-V2: the classification system. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:49.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets
Authors
Brendan Mulhern
Yan Feng
Koonal Shah
Mathieu F. Janssen
Michael Herdman
Ben van Hout
Nancy Devlin
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

PharmacoEconomics 6/2018 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries

Commentary

3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE Conundrum

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing the Measurement Properties of the Three-Level and Five-Level Versions of the EQ-5D

Original Research Article

German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L

Original Research Article

Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values

Commentary

Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L